12-year-old boy who transitioned to female has now changed their mind. - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52666987]You can actually because you can be trans without going through any surgery or medication[/QUOTE] then why need medical coverage if you don't need it?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52667045]then why need medical coverage if you don't need it?[/QUOTE] Some people do need it, some people do not. [editline]10th September 2017[/editline] Like why are you acting like transgender people are all the same dude, you're not that stupid are you.

[QUOTE=Rhenae;52666411]Yes, most who will outgrow do by adolescence which is exactly why most standards list 14-16 as the age range where treatments can actually be considered. Hormone blockers are used because allowing that development causes significant problems for trans people who do persist with gender dysphoria past that point. Were it avoided FTMs would not need top surgery and MTFs wouldn't be at such huge risk for possibly standing out because of the masculinized face and deeper voice they develop because of testosterone prior. Transwomen who can afford it go through voice therapy and often facial feminization surgeries just to make up for things which wouldn't have needed to happen. That is why the standards are as they are. Its damage reduction from both sides. Hormone blockers can be taken to minimize effects of hormones at puberty allowing for a delay time for kids who will outgrow it to do so and grace time for those who wont to be properly identified and then go into cross-hormone treatment and minimize the later problems they have because of it.[/QUOTE] But isn't the reason those children outgrow gender disphoria that they undergo puberty? If hormone blockers prevent puberty from happening, doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose of waiting before applying treatment? Also "hormone blockers" sound like they probably have some nasty side effects, especially if given to prepubescent children.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52666967]if it isn't an illness, then why does it need medical treatment and insurance coverage?[/QUOTE] Birth defects are not illnesses and yet they still need treatment. (And being transgender is much more similar to a birth defect than an illness.) Stop being stupid. You of all people should be much less ignorant on this subject than you are considering how frequently you used to post in the tg/cd thread.

Abusive parents can cause stress and a myriad of other detrimental afflictions. That does not make abusive parents an illness, just a causative factor of it. The same goes for transgenderism. Just because its not an illness does not mean it doesn't need treatment. Eating too much usually isn't an illness, but every effort should be, made to curtail overeating to prevent obesity

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52666967]if it isn't an illness, then why does it need medical treatment and insurance coverage?[/QUOTE] "transgenderism" isn't the illness, gender dysphoria is. once you cure or ameliorate the physical disconnect between what someone's brain expects and the reality of their body, the person suffers reduced or eliminated gender dysphoria. but they are still [I]transgender[/I]. people living in social gender roles opposite to those expected of them assigned at birth are not a new thing. medical transition is new. actually look, fuck all of these bullshit semantics. it's actually incredibly simple: there are people raised as boys who have a strong urge to be women, and people raised as girls who have a strong urge to be men. if you don't let them be themselves, they get depressed and anxious and kill themselves at incredibly high rates. physicians call this bio-social-psychological condition gender dysphoria/gender identity disorder/transsexualism/transgender/trans. we know that the only effective treatment for the bad feelings that these people get is to [I]let them live their lives as the gender they want to be[/I]. this is a bio-social-psychological problem that has a medical-social-psychological solution. [quote]the surgery required is actually for cosmetic purposes rather than to genuinely benefit the health of the individual[/quote] it absolutely can be both. say you have been severely [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disfigurement#Overview]facially disfigured[/url]. it's not unusual that this facial disfigurement doesn't affect your body's ability to survive physically - you can still breathe, eat, drink, see, hear, and your cognition is not affected. but you are still facially disfigured. people constantly stare at you on the street. people often flinch and double take when you're out in public. finding a partner is difficult. [quote]Disfigurement, whether caused by a benign or malignant condition, often leads to severe psychosocial problems such as negative body image; depression; difficulties in one's social, sexual, and professional lives; prejudice; and intolerance. This is partly due to how the individual copes with looking 'visibly different', though the extent of the disfigurement rarely correlates with the degree of distress the sufferer feels. An additional factor which affects sufferers of a disfigurement is the reaction they get from other people. Studies have shown that the general population respond to people with a disfigurement with less trust, less respect and often try to avoid making contact or having to look at the disfigurement. Disfigurements affecting visible areas such as the face, arms and hands are thought to present greater difficulty for sufferers to cope with than do other disfigurements.[/quote] these effects are real. now, even if reconstructive facial surgery in this case is "cosmetic", it's obvious that a good surgical result would have far-reaching positive implications for the patient's life. it's the same with trans people and "cosmetic" treatments like facial feminisation surgery. having a tracheal shave can in theory be the difference between being treated like a woman or a deviant man.

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52667342]Birth defects are not illnesses and yet they still need treatment. (And being transgender is much more similar to a birth defect than an illness.) [/QUOTE] When you try to overly defend dumb things one transgender person did and but end up calling them all brain defected. 🤔 [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost - Sort of meme-y" - icemaz))[/highlight]

[quote="ilikecorn"]People are "that" complicated. And while transgenderism isn't a mental illness, gender dysphoria is. Its in the DSM V, its defined (even if poorly) it has a set of treatment protocols (that are still in development), by all definitions it's an illness. If its not, then we don't need to treat it, right? Just because something's an illness doesn't mean that its some sort of horrible thing, we don't sit and say "dont call ADD an illness". [/quote] yeah and homosexuality also used to be in the dsm. it's not static. it's just a set of guidelines. i personally disagree with the idea of dysphoria as an illness. it's an ailment, maybe, and treatment helps it, but it shouldn't be looked at as a "disease." [quote="ilikecorn"] Too bad that's the accepted medical science, and science really doesn't care about what your opinion is. [/quote] ok neil degrasse tyson from the school of richard dawkins, for all intents and purposes, someone under 25 can make responsible decisions. just because you have this oddly specific fixation with brain growth doesn't really mean anything in the real world. explain to me how, in our society, we accept people who are under 25 as being incapable of making rational, long-lasting decisions using your "scientific argument" as a basis. look at all the 18 year old girls in porn. should we have a moral panic that these poor, impressionable youths are being "manipulated" because they couldn't possibly know any better with their underdeveloped brains? and tattoos? how about drinking alcohol? which is legal under 21 in some nations, even. should we put the brakes on everyone's lives until they turn 25, since 25 year olds are the only ones whose thoughts "really" matter? give me a break. [quote="ilikecorn"] Check it out my dude, most of the drugs being used to treat gender dysphoria are being done so via off label use. That means that [B]we're using things like hormone blockers on people, without any actual data to suggest that they help people.[/b] The drug wasn't ever intended to be used on these people, it was built with an entirely different purpose, but as it turns out, its pretty useful for helping dysphoria too. Off label uses are great, but considering the difference between an 18 year old and 14 year old, at a METABOLIC level, its FAR safer to use them on an 18 year old. We have 0 data about using them on younger people, the little bit that we do can hardly be seen as scientific.[/QUOTE] your perspective is way too clinical. transgenderism is "treated" with hormones, but what you're alluding to is that "transpeople are just mentally ill x appearing as y." very dangerous, bigoted waters you're avoiding explicitly treading in. the point of hormone blockers is to give transpeople the opportunity of passing more easily when they can take hrt. seems pretty obvious to me. what evidence do you need to understand that? people who haven't been subjected to testosterone make "better" girls. in my opinion a good portion of the trans experience is aesthetic. that doesn't make it any less valid. nor does it, in my opinion, mean we shouldn't cover helping it with insurance.

[QUOTE=Sky King;52667546]When you try to overly defend dumb things one transgender person did and but end up calling them all brain defected. 🤔[/QUOTE] It is literally closer to a birth defect than a mental illness, are you really that ignorant of the subject? The part of the brain associated with gender identity resembles that of the person's identity a lot more than that of their birth sex. And the reason for this appears to be due to hormonal imbalances during gestation. So it's most closely associated to birth defects.

-snip-

[QUOTE=Alice3173;52667576]It is literally closer to a birth defect than a mental illness, are you really that ignorant of the subject? The part of the brain associated with gender identity resembles that of the person's identity a lot more than that of their birth sex. And the reason for this appears to be due to hormonal imbalances during gestation. So it's most closely associated to birth defects.[/QUOTE] I'm talking about dysphoria, the big bad in transgenderism If we could cure down syndrome instantly we would do it, not treat down syndrome kids that feel bad about their condition. In your case, if transgenderism REALLY is a brain defect that could be cured completely somehow. Would we do it? Where is the exact line that we don't cross. I'm arguing that transgenderism is MORE then just a brain defect because that way of thinking motivates people like Mike Pence that wants to shock the gayness away from people.

[QUOTE=Sky King;52667591]I'm talking about dysphoria, the big bad in transgenderism If we could cure down syndrome instantly we would do it, not treat down syndrome kids that feel bad about their condition. In your case, if transgenderism REALLY is a brain defect that could be cured completely somehow. Would we do it? Where is the exact line that we don't cross. I'm arguing that transgenderism is MORE then just a brain defect because that way of thinking motivates people like Mike Pence that wants to shock the gayness away from people.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The DSM-IV-TR diagnostic component of distress is not inherent in the cross-gender identity; rather, it is related to social rejection and discrimination suffered by the individual.[41][/QUOTE] from wiki. it's an old version of dsm but still worth considering.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52667613]Birth defects are legally and medically considered illnesses....[/QUOTE] I actually have never heard that before. I still wouldn't really consider them the same thing as an illness though personally. An illness is something that you catch or otherwise develop over time. A birth defect is something you are born with. And I think that's a pretty important distinction even though both situations still need treatment.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52667613]Because how I feel should have no perspective on how I treat. I can feel like a heroin user is a total shitbag, but that doesn't mean I'm going to treat them differently. A clinical perspective makes sure that we treat people with as little bias as possible, while trying to do the most good. We're trying to get away from "treat how you feel" in medicine, by going with "evidence based medicine". Which effectively means: No evidence of good = dont bother doing it. It means doing studies and getting down to the actual meat and potatoes of the issue. I've seen you say several times now "transitioning earlier is better", great, bring me some scientific evidence, show me where we've PROVEN that. Because anecdotal "well my one trans friend says they wish they transitioned earlier" doesn't count, and should never count.[/QUOTE] i can't, because my thoughts on the matter are formed from observing spaces that transgender people occupy online. i understand what you're getting at. and i think it's fine to stick to guidelines if your profession calls for it—even desirable. unfortunately, feelings do matter to me. i consider most things to be relative. i'm all out of steam and am not trying to personally insult anyone, so i'm just going to stop. again, i understand how you're thinking—really—but i "feel," being a trans person and all, and having been controlled by authority figures in the past, that some people should have more of an opportunity to make decisions that other people might not completely understand. even if by traditional metrics those decisions would be considered unacceptable.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;52667699]I feel like in the end, we're both arguing for the same thing (proper treatment of transgender people), we just disagree about the methodology for treatment.[/QUOTE] yeah, i'm definitely going to put more time into studying the matter and different viewpoints. this thread has made me realize i don't have as good of an understanding as i thought.

i'm so exhausted having to defend the entirety of trans anything any time this kind of thing happens. imagine if this kid's mum actually stuck to the medical guidelines. we wouldn't be having five pages of this back and forth. [editline]10th September 2017[/editline] I mean, I guess I don't have to say anything. I could just say nothing. I don't need to be here lol

Why is the OP rated funny lol. Isn't it a horror situation.

[QUOTE=Turnips5;52667719]imagine if this kid's mum actually stuck to the medical guidelines. we wouldn't be having five pages of this back and forth.[/QUOTE] I think that's sort of the problem? The kid went along with everything as a normal trans child would then then did a 180. [QUOTE=Turnips5;52667719]I mean, I guess I don't have to say anything. I could just say nothing. I don't need to be here lol[/QUOTE] How I view my life tbh.

[QUOTE=pith_;52667572]yeah and homosexuality also used to be in the dsm. it's not static. it's just a set of guidelines. i personally disagree with the idea of dysphoria as an illness. it's an ailment, maybe, and treatment helps it, but it shouldn't be looked at as a "disease."[/QUOTE] Dysphoria pretty much is a defect with a primarily negative influence on the individual. That's what gets something listed in the DSM. If you are dysphoric, you are generally either to live a life of depression, or have to change your body into being a between-state between the two biological sexes and require medication for the rest of your life. Homosexuality got de-listed because we further began to understand human behavior and sexuality, and realized that it mostly was just standard human behavior that doesn't, on its own, cause problems. It got taken out in 1973, which that date really says a lot.

[QUOTE=_Axel;52667290]But isn't the reason those children outgrow gender disphoria that they undergo puberty? If hormone blockers prevent puberty from happening, doesn't that kinda defeat the purpose of waiting before applying treatment? Also "hormone blockers" sound like they probably have some nasty side effects, especially if given to prepubescent children.[/QUOTE] Honestly, we don't know the answer to that yet. See, if you look at it seperate from the body the reason is that from the ages in elementary school typically pre-puberty to the ages starting in middle school (typically post puberty start) kids learn to look beyond themselves in relation to society. So in young ages their understanding of gender is very self focused and purely about toys or actions, because they are simply learning and immitating things from adults, slowly building a sense of self. After that, at about the same time as puberty kids start to learn to think about others and how they relate to them socially. We don't know entirely if this brain development is hormonally affected. There are kids with early puberty or very late puberty though which typically don't show exception to this standard (one girl I knew growing up didn't start having periods and developing untill late high school, for example.) So that would at least suggest the change in understanding and self concept would happen either way. Even if they don't physically develop they learn about it and learn to place themselves within societal groups. We just can't entirely confirm that yet because there isn't nearly enough data specifically testing for it. One of those "can't really know till you try" kinda deals in a sense. As for side effects of hormone blockers there are a few. Typically usage for hormone blockers till now has been in young girls with "precosious puberty", where puberty started too early or they encounter problems related to it when pretty young. It is intended to be started right at the onset of puberty symptoms (to minimize effect and time on it). The main health risk I remember from reading is possible bone density loss (similar risk to most hormonal birth control women take). Again though this has not been as heavily studied as it should, but one needs subjects to do a study. Doctors try their best to minimize unnecessary time on it for these reasons. So far it's still in use because results have been in an acceptable range for the benefits. Usage up to the age of 16 though was not as typical and is one of the current major concerns for doctors who are attempting to help trans kids. A trans child's health is typically going to be closely monitored by a doctor while taking hormone blockers, and they will be stopped if a problem presents itself (often they will start cross hormone treatment at that time if possible). That's a bit of a hypothetical at the moment though since so few doctors are experienced, trained, or even that trans positive. Finding a good one can be a bit of a jackpot. In my experience the standard doc is TOO ready to pull treatment at the drop of a hat for any medical issue, even when there is very little reason to consider it linked. So I wouldn't super worry at this point in time with things being over prescribed, although it's a future possibility to prepare for in writing standards for sure. There are absolutely concerns with the usage of these things, as with most newer medicines. Its being currently studied so that more info can be found, but in the meantime doc's are doing what they can to help and keep a close eye on kids being treated.